Army Calls Gun $1.8 Billion Error

August 28, 1985|By George E. Curry, Chicago Tribune.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Tuesday that he is scrapping the Army`s controversial $4.5 billion ``Sgt. York`` antiaircraft weapon program because it has performed poorly and its production is ``not worth the additional cost.``

Weinberger said at a Pentagon press conference:

``I have decided to terminate the Sgt. York Army defense weapon system. The independent operational tests demonstrated that the system`s performance does not effectively meet the military threat.

``The tests demonstrated also that while there are marginal improvements that can be made to (the weapon), these are not significant compared with the capability of current air defense weapons and therefore not worth the additional cost.``

The decision to halt the major project comes after a decade of work on a new way to shoot down Soviet aircraft that could threaten U.S. ground troops. The move also comes as Congress and the public have been calling for tougher actions to protect against military cost overruns and for stiffer penalties against defense contractors that deliver flawed weapons.

The Army has spent $1.8 billion on the project, and terminating it is expected to save about $3 billion, Weinberger said. The move also will force the Army to rely on current antiaircraft weapons, the 20 mm. Vulcan Gatling gun and the Chaparral missile system.

The gun dubbed the Sgt. York, after the popular World War I Army hero Alvin York, is formally known as DIVAD, or the Division Air Defense system. Under initial plans, 618 of the weapons were to be delivered to the Army by 1989 at a cost of about $4.5 billion. So far, 65 of the guns have been delivered by Ford Aerospace Communications Corp., a subsidiary of the U.S. automaker based in Newport Beach, Calif.

DIVAD is a twin 40 mm. cannon mounted on a converted tank chassis and operated by hand or by a modified computer radar system originally designed for the F-16 jet fighter. The purpose of the rapid-fire system, which could shoot up to 600 rounds per minute on the run, was to protect infantry soldiers and armored personnel carriers from attacks by helicopters and jet fighters. The three-man vehicle was to have traveled in any weather and at any time of day. In addition, it was supposed to perform for up to four hours in areas contaminated by chemical attack.

But some defense experts considered DIVAD obsolete before the weapons could be delivered, and Weinberger said Tuesday that the latest model of Soviet helicopters, being used in Afghanistan, can remain outside DIVAD`s 2.4- mile range and still fire on U.S. combat troops and weapons.

Questions have been raised about DIVAD`s performance since its troubled inception in 1980.

The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, issued reports in 1980, 1982 and 1983 raising questions about the Army`s testing programs for the weapon. In 1984, the Defense Department`s inspector general released a report showing that of the first $1.5 billion spent on the contract, at least $88 million was excessive.

Other reports have listed additional flaws, including the failure of the computer and power unit to function properly in cold weather and the inability of the weapon to detect electronic countermeasures designed to foil the radar system. In one test, DIVAD mistook an exhaust fan of a latrine for an enemy helicopter.

Sen. Alan Dixon (D., Ill.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was invited this year to inspect the weapon on a testing range at Ft. Bliss, Tex.

Dixon, who was undecided on whether to vote for the Army`s fiscal year 1986 budget request for the defense gun, climbed into a DIVAD and took off on a maneuver. When the target was in sight, Dixon fired, only to have an ammunition-feeding belt jam.

With one of the barrels still functioning, a drone representing a Soviet helicopter was flown over and Dixon fired 88 rounds, none of which brought down the helicopter.

Weinberger said that though he canceled DIVAD, the Army still has an

``urgent need for better air defense than we now have.``

``I am directing the secretary of the Army, together with the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, to seek a solution to our very real and urgent divisional air defense needs in the shortest possible time,`` he said.